Lies Corrupt Democracy

Democracy has no cure for a corrupt demos. Politicians’ misdeeds taint them alone, so long as their supporters do not embrace them. But when substantial constituencies continue to support their leaders despite their having broken faith, they turn democracy’s process of mutual persuasion into partisan war.

Consider: In 1974 President Richard Nixon lied publicly and officially to cover up his subordinates’ misdeeds. His own party forced him to resign. In 1998 President Bill Clinton lied under oath in an unsuccessful attempt to cover up his own. But his party rallied around him and accused his accusers. In 2013 President Barack Obama lied publicly and officially to secure passage of his most signature legislation. But when the lies became undeniable, his party joined him in maintaining that they had not been lies at all.

The point is that Nixon’s misdeeds harmed no one but himself because no one excused them. But Clinton’s and Obama’s misdeeds contributed to the corruption of American democracy because a substantial part of the American people chose to be partners in them.

The difference between the mentalities of Republicans circa 1974 and of Democrats twenty-five and forty years later is the difference between a society before and after democratic corruption. Forty years ago, just as in our time, the President of the United States headed a coalition of groups with material and ideological interest in his Administration. But, back then, the beneficiaries of power were willing enough to subordinate their interests to the greater good of maintaining the bounds of democratic partisanship. In our time, however, the constituents of Democratic Administrations so identify their own status and benefits with “the greater good” that the very notion of bounds to their own partisanship makes no sense.

Today’s Democrats argue that, some deceptive language aside, President Obama had every right to implement his view of medical care for America, as well as other things, because he was elected twice having promised something of the sort. But, in 1974, Republicans could have argued that Nixon had been elected twice, the second time by the largest margin in US history, specifically to undo the 1960s. In fact, Nixon’s lies about what he knew of his subordinates’ misdeeds were entirely irrelevant to the purpose for which he had been elected. Why should the Republican constituencies who had worked so hard have given up on the Nixon Administration? Why did Barry Goldwater, Mr. conservative himself, go to the White House to tell Nixon he had to resign?

Quite simply because he knew – everyone seemed to know, then – that respect for the truth is what enables a democratic society that resolves its differences by mutual persuasion, and that absent that respect society devolves into civil war. Nixon’s lie had not imperiled the workings of American government. But it had transgressed the essential principle. Thenceforth, no one could take him at his word. All would have to regard him as acting for himself or his party, alien to the rest. And if his party stuck with him, the rest of America would have to regard that party as alien.

Bill Clinton’s 1998 lie under oath, and then on national television proved so by DNA analysis of his own sperm, placed him precisely in Nixon’s position. But his party, by sticking with him, reversed the essential principle to which the Republicans of 1974 had adhered. Its constituencies had worked hard to reverse Ronald Reagan’s 1980s. They had raised taxes, institutionalized abortion, and vastly expanded government. By this time, they had convinced themselves that the rest of America is composed of inferior people. Why should they have jeopardized their position just because their man had fellatio in the Oval Office and lied about it?

Thus by placing their own material and ideological interests above the truth, the Democrats took upon themselves a license to lie – not just about personal matters, which was their argument at the time – but about whatever might serve their purpose.

Obama’s premeditated, repeated, nationally televised lies about the “Affordable Care Act” are integral, indeed essential, to his presidency and to the workings of the US government. The outcome of two national elections depended on it.

Even more significant is his contention that he never said what he said, and that what he said was true anyhow. In interpersonal relations, such a contention is an insult that makes civility impossible; because to continue to treat with someone who makes such affronts is self-degradation of which few are capable. In political life, such an insult is a declaration of war.

The deadly problem is that Barack Obama is not just an individual, nor even the head of the US government’s executive branch. He is the head of the party to which most government officials belong, the party of the media, of the educational establishment, of big corporations – in short of the ruling class. That class, it seems, has so taken ownership of Obama’s lies that it pretends that those who are suffering from the “Affordable Care Act” don’t really know what is good for them, or that they are perversely refusing to suffer for the greater good.

This class, in short, has placed itself as far beyond persuasion as Obama himself. Democracy by persuasion having become impossible, we are left with democracy as war.

Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and is a Senior Fellow of The Claremont Institute. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with oversight of the intelligence services. His new book Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations was published by Hoover Institution Press.

Comments

There is nothing new about lying in politics. Politicians lied about the blowing up of the Maine in Havana Harbor,they lied about the sinking of the Lusitania,they lied about the Income Tax,they lied about Social Security,they lied about Pearl harbor,they lied about the Kennedy Assassination,they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident,they lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction,they lied about Mr.Obama’s past just to name a few. Most politicians will tell their constituents and the voters whatever lies they can get away with,this is nothing new. The problem is that Most Americans either don’t care,don’t vote and if they do vote they vote their economic interests. The problem isn’t the politicians or even the Main Stream Media that have become lapdogs for the politicians. The problem is us. Not all of us,but enough of us to let the politicians get away with the lies. Mr.Codevilla is correct about the “Ruling Class” having sway over the American Republic and it’s Economic Class. I would add,however,that the real ruling class,that is the people “behind the curtain” are mostly made up of a small number of elitists and globalists. These elitists and globalists,mostly made up of bankers and the controlling interests of central banks, are not only striving to control the world’s riches but beyond that are seeking to fold America and the rest of the world into a one world global government controlled by these same megalomaniacs behind the scenes. Except for the Internet,there is no way for the average American,even if they care to be exposed to the insidious lust for power of the elitists, to know whats really going on. Most Americans either wouldn’t care or they would look upon the people talking about the threat as “tinfoil hat wearing”,extremist,right wing conspiracy nuts. They would say this even with the truth staring them right in the face.

Codevilla’s thesis is not “OMG! A politician lied!” So I don’t see what your point is in the blathering list of “they lied about … they lied about …” Address the argument he is making.

His thesis is, what the party and public response is when the politician is caught flat-footed in that lie, and whether that lie “imperil[s] the workings of the American government,” i.e. does it substantially, even permanently, poison the waters of political dialogue and negotiations?

Yeah, politicians lie. All the time. And they lie to get their people elected and their agenda implemented. But Codevilla is saying that there USED to be a standard that if you got caught in a BIG FAT LIE, it was understood that you would then suffer a penalty (resignation, impeachment, prison, permanently shamed to the extent that you would never be viable to run for public office anywhere, ever again). So the lesson for the unscrupulous was, Don’t Get Caught.

But somewhere along the way, the unscrupulous personalities in our political class became sociopathic personalities — not just immoral but amoral. With sociopaths, they just don’t give a bleep — no guilt. They are incapable of being shamed. With both of these internal and external controls inoperative as a means of regulating behavior and response to wrongdoing, the ability to hold the wrongdoer accountable boils down to one thing and one thing only: political action, driven by force of will. If Mr. Sociopath feels no guilt or shame and won’t step down, then he can only be removed from office forcibly, and for that to happen, it requires a strong consensus of “he has to go” among the politicians or voters empowered (by Constitution or law) to remove him, and the commitment to follow through on that conviction.

THIS is what Codevilla is pointing to.

Our political class is infested with sociopaths. The sociopaths are buoyed by enablers (fellow politicians, staffers, PR shills, media, voters) who themselves have become so corrupted that they refuse to do their duty (to the rule of law, the Constitution, the healthy functioning of the political process in our Republic) to remove the sociopaths from positions of power and permanently banish them from getting near the levers of power ever again.

When a nation reaches this condition, what you have is a state of raw power politics: Might Makes Right. “I won.” Anything and everything is permissible as long as it doesn’t diminish your power. The marker has been moved from “Don’t get caught” to “Don’t lose or give up power, ever.” In raw power politics, there is no such thing as real compromise — by definition — because compromise entails willingly giving ground (and power) to the other side in exchange for some benefit to your side. Hence all dialogue and all negotiations are always in bad faith, because there is no intention to deal. The only intent is to win, and winning, for sociopaths, is an all-or-nothing thing. Oh, they may be (and frequently are) chess masters, and will *appear* to compromise and negotiate, but all they are doing is biding their time and positioning themselves to capture everything.

Our Republic was founded on the idea of civil (i.e. non-bloody) and voluntary transitions of power, with the understanding that things would be cyclical … “your side” would be in power for a while, then the other side, and then your side again, etc. The reason the Framers built in so many checks and balances into the Constitution was precisely to inhibit entrenchments of power among interest groups or classes. The idea of any group of Americans holding permanent political power over every other American was anathema to our Founders. The “divine right” bullsheet was what they had fought a revolution to abolish.

Raw power politics is bad not merely because it violates the “understood rules” of the American experiment, but also because it sets in motion a course of human events that will result in bloodshed. It’s the ballot or the bullet, folks. When “the ballot” becomes not just a sham but an openly acknowledged sham for which the perpetrators do not suffer punishment (removal from power), then events move ever closer to the day where the bullet will be used.

By the way, President Obama is not the only one who lied and did so boldly, willfully and unrepentantly. He is just the most visible face on the Big Lie of Obamacare. The entire Affordable Care Act was written in a manner to deliberately lie and conceal what was actually being done. Democrats knew the “penalty” was functionally a tax, which was why the ACA gave collection and enforcement responsibilities to the IRS. But Democrats screamed and denied this all the way up until they had to argue NFIB v Sebelius before the Supreme Court. Only at that point, when RETAINING POWER (getting the decision to go their way) was at stake, did the mask come off and the argument in defense of Obamacare suddenly become, “Of course it’s a tax!”

Obamacare is founded on lies. Big lies. In-your-face lies. Half the country knew it, opposed the lies, and even tossed a slew of Democrats out of Congress in November 2010 because of the lies and the raw power politics being attempted. The biggest wipeout for a party in 70 years.

But then the Democrats got rewarded for their lies in 2012, not just once, but twice. First in June, with the SCOTUS decision, and then in November with Obama’s re-election and the pickup of two Senate seats. (Including one in Massachusetts, won by Elizabeth Warren, most “famous” for having passed herself off for years in academia as Native American. Another liar.)

And here we are one year later — the Big Lie is unraveling daily. Turns out you CAN’T keep your plan if you like it. Or your doctor. And those “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year”? Millions and millions of Americans are finding out they do not fall in that magical category of “typical” (notice how the weasel word was inserted but never defined) and are instead seeing their premiums and deductibles go through the roof. And the Obamacare website itself is designed to conceal prices until you get all the way through the labyrinthine application process.

Lies. Deliberate concealment. Taxes. More $ from your pocket.

The response from Obama and his administration? More lies. Insults about “substandard plans.” Slamming a California insurance company because one of its policy holders, a stage 4 cancer patient, had dared to write an opinion piece in the WSJ critical of Obamacare (the restrictions from which could cost her her life).

Okay, America. We are all Chicagoans now. We have entered the age of raw power politics. They lied. They lied big. The lie has been exposed. They don’t care. Because “they won.” They do not intend to be held accountable. Ever.

Yes – that is the point.
“We the People” re-examine: “By the People, of the People and For the People.” We look for the intended meaning of each of those implications: “By,” “of,” and most especially, “For,” in its effects on the quality of our governments and the quality of those selected for its operations and powers.

Gabe, you are quite a wordsmith, and a marksman of some rare quality with your superb, forthright dissection of what has been going on. It is a shame that so many of our fellow American’s listen to the political discourse, but don’t seek beyond the lies, and look, but fail to see the obvious negative outcomes. To them, life is difficult enough without having to think.

He’d turn off the TV, get clear of the banks, then weapon up and improve his tactical combat skills. As for the rest of us – and assuming the Universal DebtPonzi hasn’t collapsed by then – next 2nd Tuesday in November, patronize your local gun store. There is no way to vote our way out of a corruption this systemic.

John Adams said in 1798 “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He was absolutely right. As long as the government is dishing out goodies to select constituencies it hasn’t mattered what the executive branch does.

What a wonderfully reasoned, clear and direct essay that lays bare the corruption at the heart of today’s Democratic Party. This should be required reading in every ethics and political science class in the country but, alas, I’m sure this anti-partisan piece would be considered far too partisan for that! I fear your passing reference to civil war may prove the most prescient of all for as growing portions of the citizenry come to believe there is no relief from an increasingly oppressive and fundamentally untrustworthy state violence may become the only outlet available. We must fervently hope that such is not our future but this “lying in state” must be stopped or it will be the death of our Republic!

The On-Line Free Dictionary, the definition, with perfect example of:
com·pul·sion (km-plshn)
n.
.
.
2. a. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation: “The compulsion to protect the powerful from the discomfort of public disclosure feeds further abuse and neglect” (Boston Globe).

A progressive activist (the founder of the “Journolist” effort to coordinate how the elite press covered politics), Klein was frustrated with the way the American constitutional system pushes policy toward the middle. The only way to break out of that was to lie, and say that the policy was moderate when, in fact, it was no such thing.

Václav Havel was a playwright, essayist and a poet. He was also the last President of Czechoslovakia before it was broken up into the Czeck Republic and Slovaka. He lived under suffocating socialism. Socialism depends upon a fundamental lie: that society will be better when everyone lives at the expense of everyone else. This required institutionalized lies that had a horribly corrosive effect on humanity. In his famous essay, Power of the Powerless, he wrote:

“…[socialism] touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological
gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with
hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government;
the working class is enslaved in the name of the work ing class; the
complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate
liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available;
the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and
the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the
repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial
influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free
expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become
the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most
scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance.
Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything.
It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the
future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent
and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It
pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to
pretend nothing.

“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave
as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get
along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they
must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them
to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact,
individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the
system.”

“Democracy as war” is a fair description of Weimar Germany or even Revolutionary America. Eventually, tables where stacked decks are used get kicked over by cheated players. No guarantee of good outcomes, however.

Here’s an “outsider perspective” some might find interesting: Traditional Jewish law obligates all Jews living under non-Jewish regimes and outside the land of Israel to be good citizens and conscientiously to obey the laws of the host nation – as long as the rule of law holds sway. If the laws of the host nation play favorites and permit persecution of subgroups, then all bets are off. I predict and fear that we may be heading for a Southern Euro sort of situation in which the average person congratulates himself for effectively gaming the system, and law-abiding uprightness is considered to be for suckers…

werewife, I am very intensely interested in the distinction you imply that “traditional Jewish law” makes between “the rule of law holds sway” and “the laws of the host nation play favorites and permit persecution of subgroups”. Please provide a reference or translation or paraphrase for places where such a distinction is made.

9. The seven universal laws of morality (together with their particular branches) comprised a “genial orthodoxy.” This genial orthodoxy transcends whatever social or economic distinctions exist among men: it holds all men equal before the law. By so doing it places constraints on governors and governors alike and thereby habituated Americans to the rule of law. As a further consequence, this ancient Hebraic orthodoxy dissolved or subordinated many ethnic differences among immigrants in the new world. It moderated the demands of various groups, helped coordinate their diverse interests and talents, and thereby contributed to America’s growth and prosperity.

The article highlights a key difference between repubs and dems, repubs are not afraid to discipline their own for misdeeds, while dems will excuse one of their own from almost anything, unless the misdeed gets so bad that it endangers their power. Because of this tendency, dems have no effective check on corruption.

OK, some outright theft here:
Listen to Whittaker Chambers for a moment talking to Bill Buckley:

“The enemy–he is ourselves. That is why it is idle to talk about preventing the wreck of Western civilization. It is already a wreck from within. That is why we can hope to do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the rack or a handful of ashes from the faggots, and bury them secretly in a flowerpot against the day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there was once something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.”

Gentlemen, Angelo M. Codevilla has an excellent posting here, and the following commentator postings, here, are sensitive and understanding of Codevilla’s content. It struck a high note for me also. It reminded me of the times of my generation – the good times – and what went wrong. I would like to share it with you.
These are different times, none like the years I had first grown up in a long time ago .…
I grew up a rather innocent young man. It was an era when the society itself was governed mainly by the towns and the cities and overseen by the state-governing bodies. To a great degree, the federal government had left the compact of liberty and freedom with the people geographically. Their religious heritage, regardless of sect and their personal civil liberties, was mainly free from federal encroachment. At that time, the young generation was brought up with a great sense of respect for all of their surroundings; it was ingrained by a subtle, yet determined, God-given atmosphere of kindness and good will between themselves. The young ladies were highly respected; foul language was a no-no in their presence. The schools of learning taught a student the three Rs successfully. The teachers were of a high moral character. The people, as a whole, were honest, hardworking, neighborly individuals. Doors and windows of homes would be left open with little fear of criminal behavior happening. As a community of people then, I believed we were the fortunate benefactors of a society that had carried on the wholesome religious and patriotic consciousness of those before us.
As my children aged, I noticed unusual changes taking place throughout the nation. As my children aged, I was witnessing various groups, organizations, education philosophers, college professors, local school administrators, legal interpreters, party politicians, congressional representatives and Senators, presidents, and federal judges redefining the heritage of America’s culture.
And from the realization of these radical changes, I took to reading, as I had never done before, of the origins of his forefathers, the framers of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself and their reasoning meanings. I was reading and absorbing .The rebellious sixties emerged in full swing, a revolution in lifestyles. Drug subculture, rise of obscenity, and defiance abounded throughout many colleges, along with student demonstrations against the Vietnam War. The nation of America had been transformed. The basic values of the public customs and lifestyles had been rearranged. The federal government had, over those years, intruded into those spheres of wholesome consciousness that had been ingrained within my own self-being; a wholesome consciousness within the nation itself slowly and aggressively being redefined to a culture unlike the nation had ever witnessed in its past and contrary to the civil and religious beliefs of the majority at large. The people were slowly becoming divided. Some force, both political and worldly, had produced an elitism with a so-called enlightenment into the fabric and framework of the people’s safe and secure liberty.
I have a great respect for Gabe, but I can’t look up to heaven – for what’s going on down here.
We all have to be as resourceful, ourselves, and keep driving OUR wholesome values to our family and friends.
Respectfully, John

i share your concerns and remembrances of things past.
I will only say that the “appeal to heaven” is definitely aimed at a somewhat lower azimuth and a bit more sanguine than heaven. look to something a bit more 18th century for the reference.

John:
i do hope that you read this. forgive my ‘flippancy” with my earlier comments as i suppose just as you can’t take the country out of the boy, you cannot take the NYCity flippancy (40years ago) out of the “street kid” and i was just being flippant and frustrated with current conditions.
i have grown to truly appreciate your commentary and your remembrances as they are also part of my past experiences, no, they are also part of my present personal constitution, and i both miss them and get p#@#@d off in their absence.

So take care and be satisifed that you have tried to live a “good life.”
i am sometimes unclear as to whether there is any more that we can do.

Dr. Codevilla swept me off my feet with America’s Ruling Class, putting into words concepts that I had intuited, but had been unable to express. The bifurcation of America that he demonstrated went way beyond the classic Big Business – Working Man divide that the political parties had for generations told us was the problem in America – this was a true divide that, if it could not be healed, had the possibility of sparking another Civil War pitting American against American.

It has become more and more apparent that the Democrat Party has assumed the mantle of The Party of Government – a mantle that they granted to themselves during the New Deal, and that they can and will do anything to maintain that position, and that they really don’t give a damn what the Country Class has to say about it. With their brazen lies, and lies about lies, they show the true Authoritarian nature of their philosophy, and how they will use all of the powers of government to ensure that they are not challenged by the residents of “fly-over country”, and that the Country Class had better toe the line, or they will feel the full brunt and weight of government on their necks, threatening their very existence.

The Ruling Class has within itself the power to pull all of us back from a precipice that can lead to a cataclysm that will potentially destroy our country. By restoring us to a time when truth and honor were more than just mere words, and that those who besmirch those concepts were not countenanced, a functioning Republic can be ours again. But, if they wish to continue on the path of democracy as war, war it shall be; and may God have Mercy on all of our Souls!

Angelo M. Codevilla’s thesis would be unsurprising to “drsanity” – a now retired professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical School. Dr. Pat Santy has been describing Democrats as psychopaths immersed in mirrors of diversion, denial, delusion, and projection for about a decade. This time of absolute moral-political has indeed been coming ever since the Clinton presidency.

There is a purgative for it, too – the Romans are infamous for all but institutionalizing its practice, once persuasion left the building. It is an ugly, but a practical moral hygiene for times like ours.

I am reading Diana West’s book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on our Nation’s Character, right now, and it suggests how all of this sea-change in viewing morality and history came about and accelerated: as a conscious project of Soviet communists, fellow-travelers, and their dupes, to undermine free countries and bring about world revolution. She writes about an amazing and depressing (and mostly forgotten or ignored) history of agents installed in our government’s top positions, and the power of Soviet propaganda and political correctness wielded by Hollywood and the media which got its start during WWII. McCarthy was right, and he didn’t know the half of it. Nor do most Americans know it today, as our history has been airbrushed and our judgment and morality neutralized.

Zabrina, the thesis that American culture was debased through a conscious effort by the Soviets is so interesting. And yet. And yet, how strong were American morals if the culture went down so lustily. Indeed that it went down without a fight? As a child of the

Actually, Obama’s most significant lies about the ACA came in 2008, 2009 and 2010, when it was passed in March, and again in 2011 and 2012 before his re-election. By 2013, Obamacare was a “done deal”, and any further lies were just reinforcing the original lies – they had no impact on votes, elections or policy changes. So the statement “In 2013 President Barack Obama lied publicly and officially to secure passage of his most signature legislation. ” should be modified to reflect the correct dates of his most vile and substantive prevarications, which led first to the passage of the law, and then to his own re-election.

I am more and more convinced that Obama is the classical demagogue that turns a radical democracy into a tyranny. Cf Aristotle’s Politics 4.4/4.6! Angelo M. Codevilla’s blog post adds the way the demagogue and his party corrupt the system to far that all faith and trust in the process is lost by a majority of the citizens.

Trackbacks

[…] Codevilla wrote an essay describing what happens to a democracy when a politician’s constituents support their leader in spite his… with them: “The deadly problem is that Barack Obama is not just an individual, nor even the […]

[…] “The point is that Nixon’s misdeeds harmed no one but himself because no one excused them. But Clinton’s and Obama’s misdeeds contributed to the corruption of American democracy because a substantial part of the American people chose to be partners in them.” Lies Corrupt Democracy […]

[…] “The point is that Nixon’s misdeeds harmed no one but himself because no one excused them. But Clinton’s and Obama’s misdeeds contributed to the corruption of American democracy because a substantial part of the American people chose to be partners in them.” Lies Corrupt Democracy […]

[…] the electorate is as corrupt as the political class. He makes his point with a lengthy quote from Angelo M. Codevilla, professor emeritus at Boston University. The lengthy quote is about how the lies of President […]

[…] have written in this space: “Obama’s premeditated, repeated, nationally televised lies… are integral, indeed essential, to…and to the workings of the US government.” They are neither innocent opinions nor mistakes. […]

[…] Democracy has no cure for a corrupt demos. Politicians’ misdeeds taint them alone, so long as their supporters do not embrace them. But when substantial constituencies continue to support their leaders despite their having broken faith, they turn democracy’s process of mutual persuasion into partisan war.Consider: In 1974 President Richard Nixon lied publicly and officially to cover up his subordinates’ misdeeds. His own party forced him to resign. In 1998 President Bill Clinton lied under oath in an unsuccessful attempt to cover up his own. But his party rallied around him and accused his accusers. In 2013 President Barack Obama lied publicly and officially to secure passage of his most signature legislation. But when the lies became undeniable, his party joined him in maintaining that they had not been lies at all.The point is that Nixon’s misdeeds harmed no one but himself because no one excused them. But Clinton’s and Obama’s misdeeds contributed to the corruption of American democracy because a substantial part of the American people chose to be partners in them.OcareThe difference between the mentalities of Republicans circa 1974 and of Democrats twenty-five and forty years later is the difference between a society before and after democratic corruption. Forty years ago, just as in our time, the President of the United States headed a coalition of groups with material and ideological interest in his Administration. But, back then, the beneficiaries of power were willing enough to subordinate their interests to the greater good of maintaining the bounds of democratic partisanship. In our time, however, the constituents of Democratic Administrations so identify their own status and benefits with “the greater good” that the very notion of bounds to their own partisanship makes no sense.Today’s Democrats argue that, some deceptive language aside, President Obama had every right to implement his view of medical care for America, as well as other things, because he was elected twice having promised something of the sort. But, in 1974, Republicans could have argued that Nixon had been elected twice, the second time by the largest margin in US history, specifically to undo the 1960s. In fact, Nixon’s lies about what he knew of his subordinates’ misdeeds were entirely irrelevant to the purpose for which he had been elected. Why should the Republican constituencies who had worked so hard have given up on the Nixon Administration? Why did Barry Goldwater, Mr. conservative himself, go to the White House to tell Nixon he had to resign?Quite simply because he knew – everyone seemed to know, then – that respect for the truth is what enables a democratic society that resolves its differences by mutual persuasion, and that absent that respect society devolves into civil war. Nixon’s lie had not imperiled the workings of American government. But it had transgressed the essential principle. Thenceforth, no one could take him at his word. All would have to regard him as acting for himself or his party, alien to the rest. And if his party stuck with him, the rest of America would have to regard that party as alien.Bill Clinton’s 1998 lie under oath, and then on national television proved so by DNA analysis of his own sperm, placed him precisely in Nixon’s position. But his party, by sticking with him, reversed the essential principle to which the Republicans of 1974 had adhered. Its constituencies had worked hard to reverse Ronald Reagan’s 1980s. They had raised taxes, institutionalized abortion, and vastly expanded government. By this time, they had convinced themselves that the rest of America is composed of inferior people. Why should they have jeopardized their position just because their man had fellatio in the Oval Office and lied about it?Thus by placing their own material and ideological interests above the truth, the Democrats took upon themselves a license to lie – not just about personal matters, which was their argument at the time – but about whatever might serve their purpose.Obama’s premeditated, repeated, nationally televised lies about the “Affordable Care Act” are integral, indeed essential, to his presidency and to the workings of the US government. The outcome of two national elections depended on it.Even more significant is his contention that he never said what he said, and that what he said was true anyhow. In interpersonal relations, such a contention is an insult that makes civility impossible; because to continue to treat with someone who makes such affronts is self-degradation of which few are capable. In political life, such an insult is a declaration of war.The deadly problem is that Barack Obama is not just an individual, nor even the head of the US government’s executive branch. He is the head of the party to which most government officials belong, the party of the media, of the educational establishment, of big corporations – in short of the ruling class. That class, it seems, has so taken ownership of Obama’s lies that it pretends that those who are suffering from the “Affordable Care Act” don’t really know what is good for them, or that they are perversely refusing to suffer for the greater good.This class, in short, has placed itself as far beyond persuasion as Obama himself. Democracy by persuasion having become impossible, we are left with democracy as war.http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/11/10/lies-corrupt-democracy/ […]

by George A. MocsaryThe great public service of the law-and-economics movement has been to expose the collateral consequences of policymakers’ actions. In Getting Incentives Right: Improving Torts, Contracts, and Restitution, law-and-economics scholars Robert…

Recent Posts

I cannot remember a time when New York’s Governor and New York City’s Mayor taken together pose a greater threat to the liberty and prosperity. Last week each proposed a dreadful policy. Governor Andrew Cuomo succeeded and Mayor Bill de Blasio failed. The different outcomes tell us a lot about what makes some statist proposalsRead Moreby John O. McGinnis

In this third post in opposition to drug legalization (here are the first and second), let me address the argument that the crime rate could be much reduced by legalizing the distribution and possession of currently illicit drugs. Theodore Dalrymple Theodore Dalrymple is a retired prison doctor and psychiatrist, contributing editor of the City JournalRead Moreby Theodore Dalrymple

Israel is subject to all sorts of double standards. This happens over and over again. One area where this is the case involves Israel’s treatment of its non-Jewish citizens. Israel is said to be an apartheid regime, even though it confers equal rights on its non-Jewish citizens. The harsh treatment by Arab states of non-MuslimsRead Moreby Mike Rappaport

Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si (“Be Praised”) has been acclaimed by the international media as a call to action on global warming, to combat its threat to world survival. It has been praised in New York Times editorials and by Progressive Catholic intellectuals like E.J. Dionne on the Left while garnering scathing or dismissive responsesRead Moreby Donald Devine

This past week, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit (Judges Kavanaugh, Pillard, and Rogers—Judge Kavanaugh writing) held that State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas (“SNB”) may proceed with its lawsuit challenging the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s authority on various constitutional grounds. Michael S. Greve Michael S. Greve is a professor at GeorgeRead Moreby Michael S. Greve

Archives

About

The Online Library of Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.